From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #226 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/226 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blakes7-d Digest Volume 00 : Issue 226 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's [ "J MacQueen" ] Re: [B7L] Time [ "Andrew Ellis" ] Re: [B7L] Time [ Iain Coleman ] Re: [B7L] New book by Camille Bacon- [ Betty Ragan ] Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's [ Betty Ragan ] Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's [ "Jessica Taylor" ] [B7L] Re: haiku [ Helen Krummenacker ] Re: [B7L] Time [ Penny Dreadful ] Re: [B7L] Re:limericks [ B7Morrigan@aol.com ] Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's [ mistral@ptinet.net ] Re: [B7L] Re:limericks [ "J MacQueen" ] Re: [B7L] New book by Camille Bacon- [ "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehow less tacky Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Iain Coleman And here's mine: >Whip out your tackle >And nail it to the cheeseboard >- you know you want to. Less tacky? Regards Joanne ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 23:44:12 +0100 (BST) From: Iain Coleman To: b7 Subject: Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehow less tacky Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Neil Faulkner wrote: > > Rumours of Death: > Just a plot device. > No more nuts, a life cut short. > Alas, poor squirrel. This is pure art. Like the finest comedy, it expresses the most fundamental and tragic truths about the universe, while leaving the audience crying with laughter. If this one doesn't end up on your website, Una, We Shall Have Words. Iain ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:40:42 +0100 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Time Message-ID: <004801c003e5$49461e20$3f227bd5@leanet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Ellis writes: > >> Erm. Basically. NO. At the simplest level FTL travel in itself simply allows >> you to travel arbitrarily fast, but NOT backwards in time. > >Wrong. Any FTL travel implies (as long as the theory of relativity >holds) the possibility for effects predating causes, which is in >practice the same as time travel. See >http://www.physics.purdue.edu/~hinson/ftl/ for much detail (written >for Star Trek, but most of it is valid for Real Life). >http://www.physics.purdue.edu/~hinson/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html#sec:ftleqvofc >goes straight to the bit about causality violation, but you probably >need to have a look at the terminology before you can make sense of it. Cursory problems with this analysis. 1) Define C as some arbitrary limiting velocity which may (or may not) be faster than c (C is in general finite, but I might be inclined to consider tending to infinity, a useful mathematical process for dealing with infinities and avoiding problems of division by zero etc) In the discussion of figure 8.1, we are informed that everything is OK if people (travelling at a velocity vp) AND messages (vm) can only travel at (vp,vm) < c. The only explanations proffered relate to space time diagrams. Using this explanation. why should things be any different if we just use (vp, vm) < C ? There is no reason I can see, you just replace c with C, and assert that there is nothing any more special about the speed of light than there is about the speed of sound, but that C is a hard limiting factor. We only have a causality problem if vp > vm and if you allow c < vp < C, why not allow c < vm < C ? I paraphrase ..... "As long as no signal can travel faster than , then it will be impossible for either observer to know about or influence the event. So even though it is in one observer's past, he cannot know about it, and even though it is in the other observer's future, he cannot have an effect on it. This is how saves its own self from violating causality. " C can be any speed that constrains the velocity of everything. It is once you allow one thing to exceed C, you get problems, not the specific value of C. In section 8.3 we define a paradox by introducing a bullet (velocity vm), and imagine that vp > vb > vm, but we should really allow vp =< vb = vm = C. In which case there is no paradox. After all, messages can always travel at C, you encode whatever travels at C with your message ! Basically, lets insist that vp=vm=vb < C. If C < c, no problem, that is normality. If C = c, no problem. If C = c + a little bit, still no problem. And a little bit more ...... And anyway, it's not time travel being suggested just some sideways hint at the grandfather paradox. 2) Equation 9.4. Actually, its not the REST mass (m) squared that is negative, but gamma squared, and consequently E squares and p squared that are. We know this because at v > c, gamma is imaginary. If E squared and p squared are both negative then inequality 9.3 holds for purely real mass. And I note that contrary to the author observation, these equations suggest a negative tachion energy, in accordance with peer reviewed scientific publications. A tachions energy becomes less negative as the velocity increases. i.e. its energy increases as its velocity increases ? Or its velocity decreases as it emits radiation. We then have an assumption, that you can use them for communication. i.e you can get them to interact with matter. With regard to the possible truths about tachions, I note that 1 and 2 are degenerate. Back to the meat. What do we actually mean by time travel. Its the old grandfather paradox. It's going back in time in your own frame of reference. But anyway, provided we have a universal hard limiting velocity (C) there is no time travel as would be recognised by individuals. Imagine time travel in the same way as the twin paradox. In the usual statement of the twin paradox, one twin ages more rapidly than the other and they are different ages when they meet (It is widely accepted that this has been experimentally observed, with two clocks showing different times after one has travelled in a jet aircraft. However, due to the effects of general relativity, the ages are actually the opposite way around than predicted by special relativity. But I digress). To demonstrate a personal experience of time travel, you need to meet your twin before you even left him, that, it, if he was 20 when you left, he needs to be 18 when you get back, not 80 (as in the twin paradox), otherwise, you would not experience any manifestation of time travel within your own frame of reference. FTL travel does not, in itself allow this, and nothing in this article suggests that it could. Of course, if time travel is allowed, FTL travel follows naturally, but not the other way around. Gnog. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 23:46:50 +0100 (BST) From: Iain Coleman To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehow less tacky Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, J MacQueen wrote: > >From: Iain Coleman And here's mine: > >Whip out your tackle > >And nail it to the cheeseboard > >- you know you want to. > > Less tacky? Than 'Animals'? You bet. Iain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:02:25 +0100 (BST) From: Iain Coleman To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Time Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Andrew Ellis wrote: > > What do we actually mean by time travel. Its the old grandfather paradox. > It's going back in time in your own frame of reference. > > But anyway, provided we have a universal hard limiting velocity (C) there is > no time travel as would be recognised by individuals. Imagine time travel in > the same way as the twin paradox. In the usual statement of the twin > paradox, one twin ages more rapidly than the other and they are different > ages when they meet (It is widely accepted that this has been experimentally > observed, with two clocks showing different times after one has travelled in > a jet aircraft. However, due to the effects of general relativity, the ages > are actually the opposite way around than predicted by special relativity. > But I digress). To demonstrate a personal experience of time travel, you > need to meet your twin before you even left him, that, it, if he was 20 when > you left, he needs to be 18 when you get back, not 80 (as in the twin > paradox), otherwise, you would not experience any manifestation of time > travel within your own frame of reference. FTL travel does not, in itself > allow this, and nothing in this article suggests that it could. Of course, > if time travel is allowed, FTL travel follows naturally, but not the other > way around. I'm having some difficulty in following this analysis. This may be because it refers to some text with which I'm unfamiliar, or because it's not couched in standard relativistic terminology, or because I'm very drunk. No matter. It is quite clear, from the most elementary spacetime diagram, than a superluminal velocity allows a causal connection between events separated by a spacelike interval. This interval can be transformed into any other spacelike interval by the Lorentz transformation. In particular, one can choose a Lorentz transformation such that the second event occurs at an earlier time than the first. Thus, FTL travel implies time travel. It is not, however, clear to me that FTL travel alone suffices for a given observer to travel into his own past light cone. In that respect, issues such as the grandfather paradox need not arise, and FTL travel appears to be a limited form of time travel. Iain ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 19:06:27 -0600 From: Betty Ragan To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] New book by Camille Bacon-Smith Message-ID: <39920013.89C717ED@sdc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Una McCormack wrote: > > > I thought people might be interested to know that there is a new book > > > out by > > > Camille Bacon-Smith (who wrote 'Enterprising Women' about media fandom). > > > > Hey, I just bought this. Like, yesterday! > > We are the good taste twins! Correction of possible minor confusion: it's _Enterprising Women_ I just bought, not the new book. Hence my grumbling. The nerve of these authors, writing new books before I've had the chance to read their old ones! -- Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/ "Imposing Latin rules on English structure is a little like trying to play baseball in ice skates." -- Bill Bryson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 19:11:39 -0600 From: Betty Ragan To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehow less tacky Message-ID: <3992014B.F3D3014E@sdc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Responding to me, Una wrote: > > I'll let you know whether I accept the mission when I find out > > whether my muse is back from wherever it went on vacation. > > Your mission, then, is track down your muse. Well, she came slinking back from wherever she went, but does not seem inclined to do much real work at the moment. Sort of like me when I get back from vacation. I did try the haiku, but the best I could come up with was: "Orbit": The ship's too heavy Avon thinks fast, grabs a gun Vila, where are you? "Blake": At last they find Blake His act's much too convincing Everybody dies Which may be fairly servicable as plot summaries, but are really quite dull (especially when compared to Helen's little "Aftermath" gem) and have nothing at all to do with Nature, or whatever the criterion for a "real" haiku was... -- Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/ "Imposing Latin rules on English structure is a little like trying to play baseball in ice skates." -- Bill Bryson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:46:45 EST From: "Jessica Taylor" To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehow less tacky Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Betty wrote: >Which may be fairly servicable as plot summaries, but are really quite >dull (especially when compared to Helen's little "Aftermath" gem) and >have nothing at all to do with Nature, or whatever the criterion for a >"real" haiku was... Yeah, this seems to be the hardest thing about haiku. The criteria was something about needing to express a feeling or emotion in the poem and I had the same problem you talk about, it isn't too difficult to say what happened but it makes it harder if you're trying to describe someones reaction to it happening. Helens onre for Aftermath probably comes closest to doing this and I remember someone did a good one for Trial. Jessica ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 18:09:04 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re:limericks Message-ID: <399200B0.5D07@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penny, We're not worthy! But continue, anyhow. BTW, I hope you don't mind, but I named a Professor at Hogwarts after you. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 18:11:47 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: haiku Message-ID: <39920153.1DA5@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wow, Mistral... yours were good summaries, well, phrased, and contemplative of the episode. Proper haiku indeed. Some liberties, of course, but closer than most of us have gotten. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 22:47:40 -0600 From: Penny Dreadful To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Time Message-Id: <4.1.20000809224425.00934270@mail.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:02 AM 8/10/00 +0100, Iain Coleman wrote: >It is quite clear, from the most elementary spacetime diagram, than a >superluminal velocity allows a causal connection between events separated >by a spacelike interval. This interval can be transformed into any other >spacelike interval by the Lorentz transformation. In particular, one can >choose a Lorentz transformation such that the second event occurs at an >earlier time than the first. Thus, FTL travel implies time travel. Yeah, that's what I meant. >It is not, however, clear to me that FTL travel alone suffices for a given >observer to travel into his own past light cone. In that respect, issues >such as the grandfather paradox need not arise, and FTL travel appears to >be a limited form of time travel. And that's what I failed to mention. Thank you, your Eminence. -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 22:50:35 -0600 From: Penny Dreadful To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:limericks Message-Id: <4.1.20000809224754.0093c660@mail.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:09 PM 8/9/00 -0700, Helen Krummenacker wrote: >I hope you don't mind, but I named a Professor at Hogwarts after >you. Ooh, do I get to be mean to Harry Potter? (;-p) -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:20:33 -0400 From: "Dana Shilling" To: "b7" Subject: [B7L] Re: Haiku Message-ID: <005d01c00287$9d0eb080$1f614e0c@dshilling> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Imagine this mousse belongs To a space captain Moloch says: curl up and dye -(Y) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:32:49 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] New book by Camille Bacon-Smith Message-ID: <0b8601c0028d$1cd1f520$0d01a8c0@codex> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Betty wrote: > Una McCormack wrote: > > > > > I thought people might be interested to know that there is a new book > > > > out by > > > > Camille Bacon-Smith (who wrote 'Enterprising Women' about media fandom). > > > > > > Hey, I just bought this. Like, yesterday! > > > > We are the good taste twins! > > Correction of possible minor confusion: it's _Enterprising Women_ I just > bought, not the new book. Hey, I bought that one last week and am reading it now! Una ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:06:13 -0600 From: Betty Ragan To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] New book by Camille Bacon-Smith Message-ID: <39924655.4EB90D0D@sdc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Una McCormack wrote: > > Correction of possible minor confusion: it's _Enterprising Women_ I just > > bought, not the new book. > > Hey, I bought that one last week and am reading it now! Well, then, very much the Good Taste Twins! (And here I thought *Sally* was my twin on this list!) I'm probably going to start reading my copy tomorrow, after I've finished the Bizarro zine I'm currently perusing. Ah, I am a happy little fan! -- Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/ "Imposing Latin rules on English structure is a little like trying to play baseball in ice skates." -- Bill Bryson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 03:02:28 EDT From: B7Morrigan@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:limericks Message-ID: <67.811ca48.26c3ad84@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > At 06:09 PM 8/9/00 -0700, Helen Krummenacker wrote: > > >I hope you don't mind, but I named a Professor at Hogwarts after > >you. > Penny replied: > Ooh, do I get to be mean to Harry Potter? (;-p) > -- And what's her relationship with Snape? Morrigan "When I get a little money I buy zines; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." (apologies to Erasmus) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 23:25:39 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehow less tacky Message-ID: <39924AE2.C0BAEEC5@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Una wrote: > > What fun. Last year, during a dull spell on the lyst, I thought of writing > > a prequel to 'Animals' in haiku. Really. > > Brilliant! Will you write it anyway and can I have it for my 'Animals' > love-in site - as proof that 'Animals' inspires people to poetry? I hope you're proud of yourself. I've just wasted nearly a day trying to decide if this makes you a sadist or a masochist. Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:16:06 EST From: "J MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:limericks Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: B7Morrigan@aol.com > Penny replied: > > Ooh, do I get to be mean to Harry Potter? (;-p) >And what's her relationship with Snape? Suddenly, I'm thinking Dreadful-Snape - admittedly, it's an interesting name, but I shudder to think what its owner would get up to... Regards Joanne (contemplating Travis II as an antidote - yes, it is time to go home, why do you ask?) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:17:03 +0100 (BST) From: Iain Coleman To: "'blakes7@lysator.liu.se'" Subject: Re: [B7L] Time Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Alison Page wrote: > The statement 'FTL travel is possible for normal matter, but relativity is > true' is a self-contradictory statement, so you can argue from it that > either time travel is possible, or time travel is impossible. Because you > can prove anything from a contradictory premise. > > So everyone is right It's a neat argument, Alison, but I don't think it's valid. This is really an argument about geometry. Special Relativity postulates that spacetime has a particular geometry, and that would be unaffected by the existence of superluminal travel. What _would_ require serious reconsideration would be the physical interpretation of that geometry, in particular of causal structures. This does not have to lead to logical contradictions, however. Iain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:26:17 GMT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] New book by Camille Bacon-Smith Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Betty wrote: Yes well this twin has to either wait till the book arrives in Australia or go and order it specially ... and my bankcard's still recovering from the last time I did that ($240 for two books, Elizabethan funerals and medieval ghosts...) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:14:47 EDT From: Bizarro7@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] New book by Camille Bacon-Smith Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has anyone else seen that hour-long Showtime documentary on Trek Fandom in all its nuances? It's salted throughout with the most fascinating (and sometimes hysterical) anecdotes as told by the actors. It even discusses fanfic and slash. I thought it was terrific, and kept wishing it would have covered the whole of media fanfic somewhere down the line, including B7. This, after seeing a full-page article in the local newspaper on the topic of slash fanfic on the web. Welcome to the cultural mainstream! Leah ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:36 +0100 From: nyder@moore.britishlibrary.net To: Penny Dreadful , lysator Subject: RE: Re: [B7L] See how in limericks 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehoweven more tacky Message-Id: <20000810113623.8F601F84E3@chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net> >Una did complain: > >>> Alas, I'm crap at writing haiku. So, at the end of this message, are my >>> feeble attempts at the first few episodes, and your mission, should you >>> choose to accept it, is to supply me with the rest. > >I still can't do haiku. But how about limericks? > Quatrains? Wake! For something in the Rebel's brain Has started his memories going again Causing him to spout slogans, steal spaceships And clutch his forehead as if in pain... That sound you hear is Omar Khayyam doing 360 degrees. Fiona http://redrival.com/nyder/indexx.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:42 +0100 From: nyder@moore.britishlibrary.net To: mistral@ptinet.net, B7 List Subject: RE: Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehow less tacky Message-Id: <20000810113630.8C9D7F85EA@chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net> >Hmm. No, I think it's just as tacky. >Mistral No, no, some of them are quite deep. Fiona http://redrival.com/nyder/indexx.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:05:25 +0000 From: Steve Rogerson To: Lysator Subject: [B7L] Re: Redemption Message-ID: <3992C4B4.AFFE189D@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jacqueline asked: "when do we get the hotel booking forms? The website says "nearer to the convention date", which is a wee bit vague for my taste." We are putting together the hotel booking forms at the moment along with the second progress report. If all goes to schedule, these will be mailed out together in October. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption: The Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 convention 23-25 February 2001, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:17:16 +0100 (BST) From: Bernard Hunt To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Haiku - Characters. Message-Id: <200008101417.PAA14373@slave.lancs.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Middle of the night I should write some *bad* Haiku Blake's Seven people. Vila, good with locks adrenalin and soma his drink of choice Avon, hi-tech wiz popular with the ladies man in black leather Cally, Auronar no need to say any more you can read my mind ! Blake started it all but in the end, do we know did he betray them ? Smuggler and pilot Jenna never really grew kind of disappeared Gan, strong as an ox some would say a little slow but his heart was good Supreme Commander very evil but stylish her name Servalan Travis, two faced man but with only one good eye surely doomed to fail Zen, ships computer ask an important question answer clear as mud ! Slave, grovel, grovel you are not responsible it is all my fault Orac, know it all yet absence of social skills insufferable I ran out of steam and had to go back to bed you can do the rest . . . Best regards, Bernie I shall go back to lurking seven further years ? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:06:01 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: "B7 List" Subject: Re: [B7L] See how in haiku 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehow less tacky Message-ID: <0c5501c002e4$fd5ddd00$0d01a8c0@codex> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: > Una wrote: > > > > What fun. Last year, during a dull spell on the lyst, I thought of writing > > > a prequel to 'Animals' in haiku. Really. > > > > Brilliant! Will you write it anyway and can I have it for my 'Animals' > > love-in site - as proof that 'Animals' inspires people to poetry? > > I hope you're proud of yourself. I've just wasted nearly a day trying > to decide if this makes you a sadist or a masochist. Either way. Una ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:00:00 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Haiku - Characters. Message-ID: <0c9801c002ec$902dc530$0d01a8c0@codex> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bernie wrote: > Middle of the night > I should write some *bad* Haiku > Blake's Seven people. [snip] > Best regards, Bernie > I shall go back to lurking > seven further years ? Wow. Hope you post more often, Bernie. Una ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:14:17 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Subject: [B7L] Non fan haiku Message-ID: <0caf01c002ee$6bc1aa20$0d01a8c0@codex> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This was written by my friend Ian, who isn't a fan, and has seen only 2 1/2 episodes. Cygnus Alpha: Somebody told me Brian Blessed was in this. I must have missed him. Una ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:10:23 +0100 From: "Alison Page" To: "lysator" Subject: [B7L] Zenith Message-ID: <008c01c002f2$1bc1c9c0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A replacement copy of Zenith arrived today and - yay - the blank pages are now full of even more lovely pics of Brian Croucher. Delightful The interview with Peter Miles is very funny isn't it? PM - 'I was cast as a German scientist called Rudolph Hess' Int - 'It was Heinz Laubenthal' PM - 'Was it? How very disappointing' Alison ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:23:04 +0100 From: "Alison Page" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Haiku - Characters. Message-ID: <008d01c002f2$1cefe980$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lurk for seven years And then post fourteen haikus Stylish achievement >Slave, grovel, grovel >you are not responsible >it is all my fault Alison ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:32:49 +0100 From: "Alison Page" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: Re: [B7L] See how in limericks 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehoweven more tacky Message-ID: <008e01c002f2$1e0418a0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fiona >Quatrains? Yes, I like it. It almost fits what we have been discussing. Awake, for distorts in the dome of night Have warped the core and set the stars to flight And lo! the paradox of time hath caught The fleeing space ship in a cone of light Alison ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:03:23 +0100 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Time Message-ID: <001201c004a0$deec9920$d83c073e@leanet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Andrew Ellis wrote: > >> >> What do we actually mean by time travel. Its the old grandfather paradox. >> It's going back in time in your own frame of reference. >> >> But anyway, provided we have a universal hard limiting velocity (C) there is >> no time travel as would be recognised by individuals. Imagine time travel in >> the same way as the twin paradox. In the usual statement of the twin >> paradox, one twin ages more rapidly than the other and they are different >> ages when they meet .....his article suggests that it could. Of course, >> if time travel is allowed, FTL travel follows naturally, but not the other >> way around. > >I'm having some difficulty in following this analysis. This may be because >it refers to some text with which I'm unfamiliar, or because it's not >couched in standard relativistic terminology, or because I'm very drunk. Iain, the text you pasted was hardly an analysis, just a discussion of what is traditionally meant by time travel. If you'd had a drink I'll forgive you. You do however, manage to agree the main point in saying... > >It is not, however, clear to me that FTL travel alone suffices for a given >observer to travel into his own past light cone. In that respect, issues >such as the grandfather paradox need not arise, but I don't follow the definition and statement do not really lead to your conclusion. >and FTL travel appears to >be a limited form of time travel. Perhaps my definition of time travel is not universally accepted. Now, causality. >It is quite clear, from the most elementary spacetime diagram, than a >superluminal velocity allows a causal connection between events separated >by a spacelike interval. This interval can be transformed into any other >spacelike interval by the Lorentz transformation. In particular, one can >choose a Lorentz transformation such that the second event occurs at an >earlier time than the first. Thus, FTL travel implies time travel. > Firstly, standard relativity does not allow causality violation for events which fall within each others past and future light cones, so there is something slightly wrong with the argument as presented. You are clearly hung up on the superluminal velocity thing. The whole spacetime argument does not depend on it being the speed of light being the limiting velocity, just that there IS a limiting velocity. This is an important point. Please stop and understand it. The velocity of light has no special property in a space time diagram other than being the limiting velocity we have chosen to use. You have two choices 1) You allow some things to travel FTL, and not others, in particular messages can travel FTL. So then if an event falls outside the future and past cones of an observer who is restricted to light speed, he can breach causality by sending a FTL message to another observer for whom the event is in his future cone. The FTL message actually leaves his future cone in order to do this. The first observer then observes the consequences of the event at some time in the future, having influenced that event. This is the situation that is described in the article and imagined by yourself, and leads to the possibility of causality violation, but not my definition of time travel. It is aged that if an event falls within the future or past cone of an observer, there is no possibility of causality violation, no matter how many Lorentz transforms you carry out. 2) You allow particles, people and messages all to travel up to the same limiting velocity (C). Instead of using the velocity of light (c) to define an observers future and past light cones (or future and past cones for simplicity), we use the new limiting velocity C. Now, in the degenerate case that C = c, we basically have the universe as we know it (everything is limited to the speed of light), with no breach of causality. Events within the future cone can be influenced by the observer, events in the past cone can have influence the observer, but events outside the two cones are independent of the observer. Now, imagine an event outside the future cone of an observer. By argument (1) you can get a violation of causality if a message is transmitted to the event at a velocity vm > c. However, in this case, in order for the message to reach the event, we need to gradually increase the actual limiting velocity of our universe such that C > vm. That is, in order for the message to reach the event, it must lie within the new future cone as defined by velocity c, and as we all know from relativity, if all objects and messages are constrained to move within their future cones, there can be no violation of causality. So. Either (1) messages can travel FTL, and other things cannot, in which case you can get causality violation in certain special circumstances. Or, (2) everything can travel FTL, in which case you do not get causality violation. In the absence of experimental evidence you are actually free to select whichever theory you prefer, and make concrete predictions from your theory, which may be tested experimentally. However, it is usual to select the most likely theory or the simplest (there is a current implicit assumption that these are one and the same, but this is not a fundamental physical law), and I would argue that the second theory is more likely, since it automatically precludes nasty things like causality violation. So the answer to the original question is that FTL travel does not *necessarily* imply that time travel or causality violation is possible. However, it is easy to imagine a case where causality violation may occur without grandfather paradox type time travel being allowed. Furthermore, if you allow time travel, FTL travel follows naturally. So basically, you can have it which ever way you like, but you need to be clear on the background technobabble, since to get causality violation without explicit time travel into your own past, you need to restrict some objects to a light cone defined by c, but messages to a greater lightcone defined by C. Of course, the spacetime diagram / future cone thing is just one aspect of the problem, what about the transition from infinite positive energy to infinite negative energy during the instant you "smoothly" accelerate through light speed. etc etc. Gnog ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:18:10 GMT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Non fan haiku Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed he *must* have dozed off early ... from the moment he appears on screen, Brian is a leeetle hard to miss ... (suddenly struck by the idea of *Vargas* joining the crew on a permanent basis ...) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:58:29 EST From: "J MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Re: [B7L] See how in limericks 'Blake's 7' is suddenly somehoweven more tacky Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: "Alison Page" >Awake, for distorts in the dome of night >Have warped the core and set the stars to flight >And lo! the paradox of time hath caught >The fleeing space ship in a cone of light Regards Joanne ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #226 **************************************